Conopco, Inc., D/B/A Van Den Bergh Foods Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Campbell Soup Company, Defendants-Appellee-Cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defendant had been prejudiced when “the assertion of a claim available some time ago would be ‘inequitable’ in light of the delay in bringing the claim”
• finding that “New York’s six year fraud statute” applies to Lanham Act false advertising claims
• noting that prejudice may be found “when a defendant has changed his position in a way that would not have occurred if the plaintiff had not delayed” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• finding that the district court properly found that Campbell had been prejudiced by the delay, where Campbell had committed massive resources to exploit a marketing strategy that it had chosen six years before
• stating that “the Lanham Act does not prescribe a limitations period for bringing claims,” but that “courts refer to the statute of limitations on analogous state law claims”
• explaining that the Lanham Act is silent on the statute of limitations, and accordingly, defendants may invoke the doctrine of laches “instead of a statutory time-bar”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).